Neo Ching Hoe

Person 2 cases

About Neo Ching Hoe

Neo Ching Hoe appears as a party in 2 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning March 2025 to October 2025. Neo Ching Hoe appeared as defendant in 2 cases. Cases span the High Court (2).

How many court cases involve Neo Ching Hoe?

Neo Ching Hoe appears in 2 published judgments from March 2025 to October 2025. Most commonly as defendant (2 cases).

Practice Areas

1. The Plaintiffs commenced the present Writ action against the Defendants in May of this year at the High Court of Malaya at Penang. Since then, the matter has been marked by a series of interlocutory applications filed by both sides, with the cause papers now numbering no fewer than 108. The applications thus far include those by the Plaintiffs for injunctive relief and discovery, and by the Defendants for security for costs. 1 2. The applications presently before this Court, namely, those filed in Enclosure 9 (by the First Defendant), Enclosure 13 (by the Fourth and Fifth Defendants), Enclosure 17 (by the Second and Third Defendants), and Enclosure 25 (by the Sixth Defendant), now fall for determination. These applications are brought pursuant to Order 12 rules 10(1)(a), 10(1)(g), 10(2), and 10(7) of the Rules of Court 2012, whereby the Defendants seek orders that the Plaintiffs’ Writ be set aside in limine and in its entirety. The applications raise a threshold issue that goes to the very root of this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the action. 1 3. What renders these applications particularly distinctive is that unlike the more familiar situation in which defendants challenge jurisdiction on the basis that they are sued in a forum where they neither reside nor conduct business, thus invoking the principle of private international law that one ought to be sued at the natural forum, the Defendants in this case are sued precisely in the forum where they reside and carry on business. Yet, they now contend that the action ought properly to have been instituted in either Taiwan or the Cayman Islands, notwithstanding considerations of cost or inconvenience. In essence, the Defendants’ contention is that the High Court of Malaya at Penang is not the appropriate forum for the Plaintiffs’ claim. 1 The Prevailing Issue 1 4. The central issue for determination is whether this Court ought to decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that Malaysia is not the appropriate or convenient forum for the dispute, and, if so, whether the Plaintiffs’ Writ ought to be set aside 1 Transfer of action 1

Defendant (2)

pa-22ncvc-69-05-2025 MYHC

1. ) CHANG WEI INVESTMENT CO. LTD 2. ) YI GUI INVESTMENT CO. LTD v 1. ) NEO CHING YUEN 2. ) CHIA CHIN KOON 3. ) NEO CHING HOE 4. ) RIGHT PRISTINE MANPRO SDN BHD 5. ) RP DORMITORY SDN BHD 6. ) RP MANPRO GROUP (CAYMAN) LTD

12 October 2025

wa-22ncc-646-09-2024 MYHC

Queck Han Tiong v 1. ) Chia Chin Koon 2. ) Neo Ching Hoe PENCELAH NEO CHING YUEN

5 March 2025